LC 

.zr6 




THE WOMAN AND 
THE UNIVERSITY 

DAVID STARR JORDAN 



^'^'^'.'u'^' 






;'^;c^' 









;t=<^'' 






■■^i< 



m 



m 



THE WOMAN AND 



i THE UNIVERSITY i 

Si S 

II DAVID STARR JORDAN m 

2T>j>( Fronitsi>iece ^^ 

tii by :^ 

S^ F. Soule Campbell %& 

i i 

?i^ /• m nV 3Si7^ 



!i«>"S 



K i 

%. w 

p ■ g 

1 i 

l§l^ SAN FRANCISCO 1^ 

||4; WHITAKER fif RAY-WIGGIN CO. X^ 

m 19 12 ^^ 



Copyright 

by 

David Starr Jordan 

19 10 

TRAKSFr-riED rr?oM 

OOPYKlftfil O.riag 



V ^ 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

THE subject of the higher training of young 
women may resolve itself into three ques- 
tions : 

I. Shall a girl receive a college edu- 
cation? 

2. Shall she receive the same kind of college edu- 
cation as a hoy? 

5. Shall she he educated in the same college? 

As to the first question: It must depend on the 
character of the girl. Precisely so with the boy. What 
we should do with either depends on his or her possi- 
bilities. No parent should let either boy or girl enter 
life with any less preparation than the best he can give. 
It is true that many college graduates, boys and girls 
alike, do not amount to much after the schools have 
done all they can. It is true, also, that higher edu- 
cation is not a question alone of preparing great men 
for great things. It must prepare even little men for 
greater things than they would otherwise have found 
possible. And so it is with the education of women. 
The needs of the time are imperative. The highest 
product of social evolution is the growth of the civil- 
ized home, the home that only a wise, cultivated and 
high-minded woman can make. To furnish such 
women is one of the worthiest functions of higher edu- 
cation. No young women capable of becoming such 
should be condemned to anything lower. Even with 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

those who are in appearance too dull or too vacil- 
lating to reach any high ideal of wisdom, this may be 
said — it does no harm to try. A few hundred dollars 
is not much to spend on an experiment of such mo- 
ment. Four of the best years of one's life spent in the 
company of noble thoughts and high ideals cannot fail 
to leave their impress. To be wise, and at the same 
time womanly, is to wield a tremendous influence, 
which may be felt for good in the lives of generations 
to come. It is not forms of government by which men 
are made and unmade. It is the character and influ- 
ence of their mothers and their wives. The higher 
education of women means more for the future than 
all conceivable legislative reforms. And its influence 
does not stop with the home. It means higher stand- 
ards of manhood, greater thoroughness of training, 
and the coming of better men. Therefore let us edu- 
cate our girls as well as our boys. A generous edu- 
cation should be the birthright of every daughter of 
the Republic as well as of every son. 

It is hardly necessary among intelligent men and 
women to argue that a good woman is a better one for 
having received a college education. Anything short 
of this is inadequate for the demands of modern life 
and modern culture. The college training should give 
some basis for critical judgment among the various 
lines of thought and effort which force themselves 
upon our attention. Untrained cleverness is said to 
be the most striking characteristic of the American 
woman. Trained cleverness, a very much more 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

charming thing, is characteristic of the American col- 
lege woman. And when cleverness stands in the right 
perspective, when it is so strengthened and organized 
that it becomes wisdom, then it is the most valuable 
dowry a bride can bring to her home. 

Even if the four K's, "Kirche, Kinder, Kuchen and 
Kleider," are to occupy woman's life, as Emperor 
William would have us believe, the college education 
is not too serious a preparation for the profession of 
directing them. A wise son is one who has had a 
wise mother, and to give alertness, intelligence and 
wisdom is the chief function of a college education. 

2. Shall we give our Girls the Same Education as 
our Boys? 

Yes, and no. If we mean by the same, an equal 
degree of breadth and thoroughness, an equal fitness 
for high thinking and wise acting, yes, let it be the 
same. If we mean this : Shall we reach this end by 
exactly the same course of studies? then the answer 
must be. No. For the same course of study will not 
yield the same results with different persons. The 
ordinary "college course" which has been handed down 
from generation to generation is purely conventional. 
It is a result of a series of compromises in trying to 
fit the traditional education of clergymen and gentle- 
men to the needs of a different social era. The old 
college course met the needs of nobody, and therefore 
was adapted to all alike. The great educational awak- 
ening of the last twenty years in America has lain in 
breaking the bonds of this old system. The essence 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

of the new education is constructive individualism. 
Its purpose is to give to each young man that training 
which will make a man of him. Not the training 
which a century or two ago helped to civilize the 
mass of boys of that time, but that which will civilize 
this particular boy. The main reason why the college 
students of today are twenty times as many as twenty 
years ago is that the college training now given is 
valuable to twenty times as many men as could be 
helped by the narrow courses of twenty years ago. 

In the university of today the largest liberty of 
choice in study is given to the student. The pro- 
fessor advises, the student chooses, and the flexibility 
of the courses makes it possible for every form of tal- 
ent to -receive proper culture. Because the college of 
today helps ten times as many men as that of yester- 
day could hope to reach, it is ten times as valuable. 
This difference lies in the development of special lines 
of work and in the growth of the elective system. 
The power of choice carries the duty of choosing 
rightly. The ability to choose has made a man out of 
the college boy, and has transferred college work from 
an alternation of tasks and play to its proper relation 
to the business of life. Meanwhile the old ideals have 
not risen in value. If our colleges were to go back 
to the cut-straw of mediaevalism, to their work of 
twenty years ago, their professors would speak to 
empty benches. In those colleges which still cling to 
these traditions the benches are empty today, or filled 
with idlers. 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

I do not mean to condemn the study of the ancient 
classics and mathematics which made almost the whole 
of the older college course. These studies must 
always have their place, but no longer an exclusive 
place. The study of the language and literature of 
Greece still ranks with the noblest efforts of the human 
intelligence. For those who can master it, Greek 
gives a help not to be obtained in any other way. As 
Thoreau once observed, those who would speak of 
forgetting the Greek are those who never knew it. 
But without mastery there is no gain of strength. To 
compel all men and boys of whatever character or 
ability to study Greek is in itself a degradation of 
Greek, as it is a hardship to those forced to spend their 
strength where it is not effective. There are other 
forms of culture better fitted to other types of man, and 
the essential feature lies in the strength of mastery. 

The best education for a young woman is surely 
not that which has proved unfit for the young man. 
She is an individual as well as he, and her work gains 
as much as his by relating it to her life. But an insti- 
tution which meets the varied needs of varied men can 
also meet the varied needs of varied women. The 
intellectual needs of the two classes are not very differ- 
ent in many important respects. In so far as these are 
different the elective system gives full play for the ex- 
pression of such differences. It is true that most men 
in college look forward to professional training and 
that very few women do so. But the college training 
is not in itself a part of any profession, and it is broad 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

enough in its range of choice to point to men and 
women alike the way to any profession which may be 
chosen. Those who have to do with the higher edu- 
cation of women know that the severest demands can 
be met by them as well as by men. There is no de- 
mand for easy or "goody-goody" courses of study 
for women except as this demand has been encouraged 
by men. In this matter the supply has always pre- 
ceded the demand. 

There are, of course, certain average differences be- 
tween men and women as students. Women have often 
greater sympathy or greater readiness of memory or 
apprehension, greater fondness for technique. In the 
languages and literature, often in mathematics and 
history, they are found to excel. They lack, on the 
whole, originality. They are not attracted by un- 
solved problems, and in the inductive or "inexact" 
sciences they seldom take the lead. The "motor" 
side of their minds and natures is not strongly de- 
veloped. They do not work for results as much as 
for the pleasure of study. In the traditional courses 
of study — traditional for men — they are often very 
successful. Not that these courses have a fitness for 
women, but that women are more docile and less criti- 
cal as to the purposes of education. And to all these 
statements there are many exceptions. In this, how- 
ever, those who have taught both men and women 
must agree; the training of women is just as serious 
and just as important as the training of men, and no 
training is adequate which falls short of the best. 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 



J. Shall Women be Taught in the Same Classes 
as Men? 

This is partly a matter of taste or personal prefer- 
ence. It does no harm whatever to either men or 
women to meet those of the other sex in the same 
classrooms. But if they prefer not to do so, let them 
do otherwise. No harm is done in either case, nor has 
the matter more than secondary importance. Much 
has been said for and against the union in one institu- 
tion of technical schools and schools of liberal arts. 
The technical quality is emphasized by its separation 
from general culture. But I believe that better men 
are made when the two are brought more closely 
together. The culture studies and their students gain 
from the feeling of reality and utility cultivated by 
technical work. The technical students gain from 
association with men and influences of which the 
aggregate tendency is toward greater breadth of sym- 
pathy and a higher point of view. 

A woman's college is more or less distinctly a 
technical school. In most cases, its purpose is dis- 
tinctly stated to be such. It is a school of training 
for the profession of womanhood. It encourages 
womanliness of thought as more or less diflferent from 
the plain thinking which is called manly. The bright- 
est work in woman's colleges is often accompanied by 
a nervous strain, as though its doer were fearful af 
falling short of some outside standard. The best work 
of men is natural, is unconscious, the normal result ol 
the contact of the mind with the problem in question. 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

In this direction, I think, lies the strongest argu- 
ment for co-education. This argument is especially 
cogent in institutions in which the individuality of the 
student is recognized and respected. In such schools 
each man, by his relation to action and realities, be- 
comes a teacher of women in these regards, as, in 
other ways, each cultivated woman is a teacher of men. 

In woman's education, as planned for women 
alone, the tendency is toward the study of beauty and 
order. Literature and language take precedence over 
science. Expression is valued more highly than action. 
In carrying this to an extreme the necessary relation 
of thought to action becomes obscured. The scholar- 
ship developed is not effective, because it is not related 
to success. The educated woman is likely to master 
technique, rather than art; method, rather than sub- 
stance. She may know a good deal, but she can do 
nothing. Often her views of life must undergo pain- 
ful changes before she can find her place in the world. 

In schools for men alone, the reverse condition 
often obtains. The sense of reality obscures the ele- 
ments of beauty and fitness. It is of great advantage 
to both men and women to meet on a plane of equality 
in education. Women are brought into contact with 
men who can do things — men in whom the sense of 
reality is strong, and who have definite views of life. 
This influence afiFects them for good. It turns them 
away from sentimentalism. It gives tone to their 
religious thoughts and impulses. Above all, it tends 
to encourage action as governed by ideals, as opposed 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

to that resting on caprice. It gives them better stand- 
ards of what is possible and impossible when the 
responsibility for action is thrown upon them. 

In like manner, the association with wise, sane and 
healthy women has its value for young men. This 
value has never been fully realized, even by the 
strongest advocates of co-education. It raises their 
ideal of womanhood, and the highest manhood must 
be associated with such an ideal. This fact shows 
itself in many ways; but to point out its existence 
must suffice for the present paper. 

At the present time the demand for the higher 
education of women is met in three different ways: 

1. In separate colleges for women, with courses of 
study more or less parallel with those given in col- 
leges for men. In some of these the teachers are 
all women, in some mostly men, and in others a more 
or less equal division obtains. In nearly all these 
institutions, those old traditions of education and dis- 
cipline are more prevalent than in colleges for men, 
and nearly all retain some trace of religious or denom- 
inational control. In all, the Zeitgeist is producing 
more or less commotion, and the changes in their evo- 
lution are running parallel with those in colleges for 
men. 

2. In annexes for women to colleges for men. In 
these, part of the instruction to the men is repeated for 
the women, though in different classes or rooms, and 
there is more or less opportunity to use the same libra- 
ries and museums. In some other institutions, the 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

relations are closer, the privileges of study being sim- 
ilar, the difference being mainly in the rules of con- 
duct by which the young women are hedged in, the 
young men making their own. 

It seems to me that the annex system cannot be a 
permanent one. The annex student does not get the 
best of the institution, and the best is none too good 
for her. Sooner or later she will demand it, or go 
where the best is to be had. The best students will 
cease to go to the annex. The institution must then 
admit women on equal terms, or not admit them at 
all. There is certainly no educational reason why a 
woman should prefer the annex of one institution 
when another equally good throws its doors wide 
open to her. 

3. The third system is that of co-education. In 
this system young men and young women are ad- 
mitted to the same classes, subjected to the same 
requirements, and governed by the same rules. This 
system is now fully established in the State institutions 
of the North and West, and in most other colleges in 
the same region. Its effectiveness has long since 
passed beyond question among those familiar with its 
operation. Other things being equal, the young men 
are more earnest, better in manners and morals, and in 
all ways more civilized than under monastic conditions. 
The women do more work in a more natural way, with 
better perspective and with saner incentives than when 
isolated from the influence of the society of men. 
There is less of silHness and folly where a man is 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 



not a novelty. In co-educational institutions of high 
standards, frivolous conduct or scandals of any form 
are rarely known. The responsibility for decorum is 
thrown from the school to the woman, and the woman 
rises to the responsibility. Many professors have en- 
tered Western colleges with strong prejudices against 
co-education. These prejudices have not often endured 
the test of experience with men who have made an 
honest effort to form just opinions. 
i^ It is not true that the character of the college 
work has been in any way lowered by co-education. 
The reverse is decidedly the case. It is true that un- 
timely zeal of one sort or another has filled the West 
with a host of so-called colleges. It is true that 
most of these are weak and doing poor work in poor 
ways. It is true that most of these are co-educational. 
It is also true that the great majority of their students 
are not of college grade at all. In such schools low 
standards rule, both as to scholarship and as to man- 
ners. The student fresh from the country, with no 
preparatory training, will bring the manners of his 
home. These are not always good manners, as man- 
ners are judged. But none of these defects is derived 
from co-education; nor are any of these conditions 
made worse by it. 

. Very lately it is urged against co-education that 

i'' its social demands cause too much strain both on 

young men and young women. College men and 

college women, being mutually attractive, there are 

developed too many receptions, dances and other 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

functions in which they enjoy each other's company. 
But this is a matter easily regulated. Furthermore, 
at the most the average young woman in college 
spends in social matters less than one-tenth the time 
she would spend at home. With the young man the 
whole matter represents the difference between high- 
class and low-class associates and associations. When 
college men stand in normal relation with college 
women, meeting them in society as well as in the 
classroom, there is distinctly less of drunkenness, 
rowdyism and vice than obtains under other condi-- 
tions. And no harm comes to the young woman 
through the good influence she exerts. To meet 
freely the best young men she will ever know, the 
wisest, cleanest and strongest, can surely do no harm 
to a young woman. Nor will the association with 
the brightest and sanest young women of the land 
work any harm to the young men. This we must 
always recognize. The best young men and the best 
young women, all things considered, are in our col- 
leges. And this has been and will always be the case. 

It is true that co-education is often attempted 
under very adverse conditions. Conditions are ad- 
verse when the Httle girls of preparatory schools and 
schools of music are mingled with the college students 
and given the same freedom. This is wrong, what- 
ever the kind of discipline offered, lax or strict; the 
two classes need a different sort of treatment. 

When young women have no residence devoted to 
their use, and are forced to rent parlors and garrets 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

in private houses of an unsympathetic village, evil 
results sometimes arise. Not very often, to be sure, 
but still once in a while. These are not to be charged 
to co-education, but to the unfit conditions that make 
the pursuit of personal culture difficult or impos- 
sible. Women are more readily affected by sur- 
roundings than men are, and squalid, ill-regulated, 
Bohemian conditions should not be part of their higher 

\ education. 

V Another condition very common and very unde- 
sirable is that in which young women live at home 
and traverse a city twice each day on railway or street 
cars to meet their recitations in some college. The 
greatest instrument of culture in a college is the "col- 
lege atmosphere," the personal influence exerted by 
its professors and students. The college atmosphere 
develops feebly in the rush of a great city. The 
"spur-studenten" or railway-track students, as the 
Germans call them, the students who live far from the 
university, get very little of this atmosphere. The 
young woman who attends the university under these 
conditions contributes nothing to the university atmos- 
phere, and therefore receives very little from it. She 
may attend her recitations and pass her examinations, 
but she is in all essential respects "in absentia," and 
so far as the best influences of the university are con- 
cerned, she is neither "co-educated" nor "edu- 
cated." The "spur-student" system is bad enough 
for young men, virtually wasting half their time. 
With young women the condition of continuous rail- 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

reading, attempted study on the trains, the necessary 
frowsiness of railway travel and the laxness of man- 
ners it cultivates, are all elements very undesirable in 
higher education. If young women enter the col- 
leges, they should demand that suitable place be made 
for them. Failing to find this, they should look for it 
somewhere else. Associations which develop vulgarity 
cannot be used for the promotion of culture either for 
men or for women. That the influence of cultured 
women on the whole is opposed to vulgarity is a power- 
ful argument for education, and is the secret basis of 
much of the agitation against it. 

With all this it is necessary for us to recognize 
actual facts. There is no question that a reaction has 
set in against co-education. The number of those 
who proclaim their unquestioning faith is relatively 
fewer than would have been the case ten years ago. 
This change in sentiment is not universal. It will be 
nowhere revolutionary. Young women will not be 
excluded from any institution where they are now 
welcomed, nor will the almost universal rule of co- 
education in State institutions be in any way reversed. 
The reaction shows itself in a little less civility of 
boys toward their sisters and the sisters of other 
boys ; in a little more hedging on the part of the pro- 
fessors ; in a little less pointing with pride on the part 
of college executive officials. There is nothing tan- 
gible in all this. Its existence may be denied or 
referred to ignorance or prejudice. 

But such as it is, we may for a moment inquire 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

into its causes. First as to those least worthy. Here 
we may place the dislike of the idle boy to have his 
failures witnessed by women who can do better. I 
have heard of such feelings, but I have no evidence 
that they play much actual part in the question at 
issue. Inferior women do better work than inferior 
men because they are more docile and have much less 
to distract their minds. But there exists a strong 
feeling among rowdyish young men that the prefer- 
ence of women interferes with rowdyish practices. 
This interference is resented by them, and this resent- 
ment shows itself in the use of the offensive term 
"co-ed" and of more offensive words in vogue in 
more rowdyish places. I have not often heard the 
term "co-ed" used by gentlemen, at least without 
quotation marks. Where it is prevalent, it is a sign 
that true co-education — that is, education in terms of 
generous and welcome equality — does not exist. I 
have rarely found opposition to co-education on the 
part of really serious students. The majority are 
strongly in favor of it, but the minority in this as in 
many other cases make the most noise. The rise 
of a student movement against co-education almost 
always accompanies a general recrudescence of aca- 
demic vulgarity. 

A little more worthy of respect as well as a little 
more potent is the influence of the athletic spirit. In 
athletic matters, the young women give very little 
assistance. They cannot play on the teams, they can- 
not yell, and they are rarely generous with their 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

money in helping those who can. A college of a 
thousand students, half women, counts for no more 
athletically than one of five hundred, all men. It is 
vainly imagined that colleges are ranked by their ath- 
letic prowess, and that every woman admitted keeps 
out a man, and this man a potential punter or sprinter. 
There is not much truth in all of this, and if there 
were, it is of no consequence. College athletics is in 
its essence by-play, most worthy and valuable for 
many reasons, but nevertheless only an adjunct to the 
real work of the college, which is education. If a 
phase of education otherwise desirable interferes with 
athletics, so much the worse for athletics. 

Of like grade is the feeling that men count for 
more than women, because they are more likely to be 
heard from in after-life. Therefore, their education is 
of more importance, and the presence of women 
impedes it. 

A certain adverse influence comes from the fact 
that the oldest and wealthiest of our institutions are 
for men alone or for women alone. These send out a 
body of alumni who know nothing of co-education, 
and who judge it with the positiveness of ignorance. 
Most men filled with the time-honored traditions of 
Harvard and Yale, of which the most permeating is 
that of Harvard's and Yale's infalUbility, are against 
co-education on general principles. Similar influences 
in favor of the separate education of women go out 
from the sister institutions of the East. The methods 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

of the experimenting, irreverent, idol-breaking West 
find no favor in their eyes. 
1/ The only serious new argument against co-educa- 
tion is that derived from the fear of the adoption by 
universities of woman's standards of art and science 
rather than those of man, the fear that amateurism 
would take the place of specialization in our higher 
education. Women take up higher education because 
they enjoy it; men because their careers depend upon 
it. Only men, broadly speaking, are capable of ob- 
jective studies. Only men can learn to face fact with- 
out flinching, unswayed by feeling or preference. The 
reality with woman is the way in which the fact affects 
her. Original investigation, creative art, the "reso- 
lute facing of the world as it is" — all belong to man's 
world, not at all to that of the average woman. That 
women in college do as good work as the men is be- 
yond question. In the university they do not, for this 
difference exists, the rare exceptions only proving the 
rule, that women excel in technique, men in actual 
achievement. If instruction through investigation is 
the real work of the real university, then in the real 
university the work of the most gifted women may be 
only by-play. 

It has been feared that the admission of women to 
the university would vitiate the masculinity of its 
standards, that neatness of technique would replace 
boldness of conception, and delicacy of taste replace 
soundness of results. 

It is claimed that the preponderance of high-school- 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

educated women in ordinary society is showing some 
such effects in matters of current opinion. For ex- 
ample, it is claimed that the university extension course 
is no longer of university nature. It is a lyceum 
course designed to please women who enjoy a little 
poetry, play and music, who read the novels of the 
day, dabble in theosophy, Christian science, or physic 
psychology, who cultivate their astral bodies and think 
there is something in palmistry, and are edified by a 
candy-coated ethics of self-realization. There is noth^ 
ing ruggedly true, nothing masculine left in it. Cur- 
rent literature and history are affected by the same 
influences. Women pay clever actors to teach them — 
not Shakespeare or Goethe, but how one ought to 
feel on reading King Lear or Faust or Saul. If the 
women of society do not read a book it will scarcely 
pay to publish it. Science is popularized in the same 
fashion by ceasing to be science and becoming mere 
sentiment or pleasing information. This is shown by 
the number of books on how to study a bird, a flower, 
a tree, or a star, through an opera-glass, and without 
knowing anything about it. Such studies may be 
good for the feelings or even for the moral nature, 
but they have no elements of that "fanaticism for 
veracity," which is the highest attribute of the edu- 
cated man. 

These results of the education of many women and 
a few men, by which the half-educated woman be- 
comes a controlling social factor, have been lately set 
in strong light by Dr. Miinsterberg. But they are 



\ 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

used by him, not as an argument against co-education, 
but for the purpose of urging the better education of 
more men. They form likewise an argument for the 
better education of more women. The remedy for 
feminine dilettantism is found in more severe training. 
Current literature as shown in profitable editions re- 
flects the taste of the leisure class. The women with 
leisure who read and discuss vapid books are not repre- 
sentative of woman's higher education. Most of them 
have never been educated at all. In any event this 
gives no argument against co-education. It is thor- 
ough training, not separate training, which is indicated 
as the need of the times. Where this training is taken 
is a secondary matter, though I believe, with the ful- 
ness of certainty that better results can be obtained, 
mental, moral and physical in co-education, than in 
any monastic form of instruction. 

A final question: Does not co-education lead to 
marriage? Most certainly it does; and this fact can- 
not be and need not be denied. The wonder is rather 
that there are not more of such marriages. It is a 
constant surprise that so many college men turn from 
their college associates and marry some earlier or 
later acquaintance of inferior ability, inferior training 
and often inferior personal charm. The marriages 
which result from college association are not often 
premature — college men and college women marry 
later than other men and women — and it is certainly 
true that no better marriages can be made than those 



THE WOMAN AND THE UNIVERSITY 

founded on common interests and intellectual friend- 
ships. 

A college man who has known college women, as a 
rule, is not drawn to those of lower ideals and inferior 
training. His choice is likely to be led toward the best 
he has known. A college woman is not led by mere 
propinquinty to accept the attentions of inferior men. 

Where college men have chosen friends in all cases 
both men and women are thoroughly satisfied with the 
outcome of co-education. It is part of the legitimate 
function of higher education to prepare women, as 
well as men, for happy and successful lives. 

An Eastern professor, lately visiting a Western 
state university, asked one of the seniors what he 
thought of the question of co-education. 

"I beg your pardon," said the student, "what ques- 
tion do you mean ?" 

"Why, co-education," said the professor, "the edu- 
cation of women in colleges for men." 

"Oh," said the student, "co-education is not a ques- 
tion here." 

And he was right. Co-education is never a question 
where it has been fairly tried. 



MAX 18 1912 













^i5 ^h"»fii •■■"■-■"-'' -■^^'■^ 
'■■■■■ •;';)'»^V^'^:'^^;?-''^' ' 









M^'^r' ' 






f:^''^''i:^i^':'^ 



I,. ■■■.•»■%•** 









m; 



3<r%^j 



W^^i^S^^Mwrn^m 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



% 



019 630 091 



